DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 8/16/2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: storing a graph comprising multiple nodes and directed edges, each edge connects a start and end node and is composed of an incoming edge connected to the end node and an outgoing edge connected to the start node; wherein the graph represents a network and nodes represent entities; each directed edge represents a relationship between entities; further recording each start and end nodes in respective records of a data structure; each record comprises a combination of first, second or third attributes, said attributes storing node, incoming edge or outgoing edge identifiers; and storing the start node identifier in the first attributes combination in the first record, and a unique relationship identifier in the third attribute combination, said unique relationship representing a step along a path in the network; storing end node identifiers in the first attribute combination in the second record, and the unique relationship identifier in the second attribute combination; wherein a value of the second attribute combination of the second record matches the third attribute value of the first record represents a defined directed edge between the start and end node. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including inventory management. Further, they cover mental processes, including an observation, judgement, evaluation or opinion.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a computer processor for recording and storing data, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 teaches determining the directed edge by matching the second attribute and third attribute combination value of the first record, said edge is between the start node and end node, by a processor.
Claim 3 recites providing the data structure to a graph visualization device for displaying the network. This is seen as sending and receiving data, and not a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites confining the data structure to a relational data table associated to a data mode. This is seen as narrowing the abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites narrowing the network to a supply chain network, and entity to a stock keeping unit (SKU), and the relationship between entities a bill of materials and/or bill of distribution. This is seen as specifying details of the abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites the unique relationship identifier (ID) comprises a bill-of material (BOM) ID.
Claim 7 recites the node identifier is a case key. Claim 8 recites the case key as a combination of a material ID and a plant ID. Examiner interprets this a being a SKU ID, in accordance with claim 5.
Claim 9 recites a node being end and start and connected to an incoming and outgoing edge, and recording the node ID as assigned to the first attribute combination, and a first BOM ID of an incoming edge is assigned to the second attribute combination, and a second BOM ID of an outgoing edge is assigned to a third attribute combination.
Claim 10 recites a first BOM ID of incoming edge is assigned to the second attribute combination, or the second BOM ID of an outgoing edge is assigned to the third attribute combination.
Claim 11 recites at least one of the attribute combinations is only one attribute.
Claim 12 recites the network as a process network comprising instances of two or more different processes and interactions between process steps, and each node represents a process step, and the unique relationship identifier represents a signal between the start and end node, which forms the output of the start node provided to the end node of a first and second process respectively, and the data structure comprises a fourth attribute storing a sequence of the process steps such the data forms an extended process protocol.
Claim 13 recites the first attribute combination is a case attribute and activity attribute, where an ID of the process instance of the process step is stored, and an ID of the process step is stored, respectively.
Claim 14 recites the data structure is store in volatile memory of the storage device. Claim 15 recites a method of controlling a flow in a network presented by a graph stored according to claim 1.
These claims are seen as detailing the abstract ideas, and the combination of a volatile memory storage device and processor implementing the ideas is seen as applying the exception using computing technology in its ordinary capacity.
Reasons why the Claims Would be Allowable over Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art or non-patent literature has been found that teaches the claimed limitations of multiple directed edges in a graph, a start and end node, an incoming edge and outgoing edge, each start and end node in a first and second record respectively, each record comprising at least a combination of a number of first, second and third attributes comprising identifiers of node, incoming and outgoing edges respectively, storing in the first record the start node identifier in the combination of the number of first attributes and a unique relationship identifier in the combination of a number of third attributes, wherein the unique relationship identifier represents a step along a path in the network, and a value of the combination of the number of second attributes of the second record matching the value of the combination of the number of third attributes of the first record defines the directed edge, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim(s).
The closest prior art that reads on the claims are: Majumdar (US 2018/0137155). Mujumdar teaches start and end nodes in a process graph stored in a relational database, and directed edges, but not a value of the combination of the number of second attributes of the second record matching the value of the combination of the number of third attributes of the first record defines the directed edge. In summation, Applicant' s claims are distinct from the closest prior art.
The examiner notes the cited limitations above in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim(s) are found to be allowable over the prior art of record. Independent claims recite the quoted allowable subject matter or substantially similar language. Accordingly, the claims and their dependent claims are allowable over the prior art for the reasons identified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights